When the State Ethics Commission fined him $2,000 in 1997 for taking the tickets, the news barely made a ripple. Rowland was a popular governor with approval ratings of over 60 percent.

Many considered the case no big deal.

The legislature did, however, toughen state ethics laws. In essence, lawmakers made it illegal for the governor to accept most gifts worth more than $10. In the years that followed, he would return books and cuff links, citing Connecticut's "strict gift acceptance limits."

But, according to evidence gathered by investigators for a legislative committee investigating the governor, Rowland continued to accept other, bigger gifts from friends, political appointees and contractors who did business with the state.

There is no smoking gun, no direct evidence that the governor handed favors to those who gave gives. In fact, he emphatically denies that is the case. But what troubles a wide range of political observers is the perception that Rowland systematically used his office for personal gain.

It was not the size of any one gift that led to his resignation Monday as much as it was the sheer number. There were vacations and wine and cigars and hot tubs and heating systems and speaking fees for Rowland's wife.

There was the use of a Republican Party credit card to go to a ski resort. There was the too-good-to-be-true deal in which Rowland sold a condominium for double its market value.

"There is definitely a pattern," said William Dunlap, a law professor at Qunnipiac University School of Law. "Certainly the fact that he was taking gifts from people that do business with the state gives rise to the inference there was a quid pro quo. There is difficulty in proving he did anything in return, but as more is found out, it's damaging."

Five months ago, when the legislature launched an investigation of Rowland, many lawmakers said it would take a serious breach of the law for them to consider impeaching Rowland.

But as time went on, and the revelations poured out, lawmakers seemed willing to consider whether a pattern of ethics violations was enough to remove Rowland.

Rep. John Frey, a Ridgefield Republican who was a staunch supporter of Rowland's legislative agenda, said Rowland's credibility eroded a little at a time.

"The concert tickets, I didn't think was a big deal," Frey said. "The credit card use, I was uncomfortable with. What was totally unexpected was the condo situation."

In 2002, he was the Democratic candidate for governor. A former state comptroller and aide to President Clinton, he made ethics the issue in the campaign.

"The four least popular words in the English language are, 'I told you so,' We were the Constitution State. Then we woke up one morning and we were Louisiana with foliage," said Curry, referring to a southern state with an unsavory political history. "Corruption is at every level."

Indeed, Bridgeport Mayor Joseph Ganim and Waterbury Mayor Phil Giordano were under investigation during the 2002 campaign, and both would eventually be convicted.

Still, Rowland's ethical problems at that point seemed minor. There was the $2,000 fine for the concert tickets and a $6,000 fine for using the GOP credit card.

But the public didn't know the whole story.

In March 1999, Rowland had stayed at the Florida home of the Tomasso family, whose New Britain-based contracting company has been awarded millions of dollars in state contracts. Other vacation expenses were paid for by then co-chief of staff Peter Ellef.

In February 2000, Ellef again paid for a Vermont vacation for the Rowlands, who again stayed in a home owned by the Tomassos. Rowland eventually paid a $9,000 ethics fine for accepting the free trips - but that wasn't until 2003, well after he won a third term.

Curry said both parties enabled Rowland's corruption.

"Our entire state government made a conscious decision not to enforce ethics laws," Curry said. "Only the U.S. attorney's office because of their work, we got our government back."

�

Well before Rowland's re-election, the U.S. attorney's office in Connecticut began investigating former state Treasurer Paul Sylvester, who would eventually be convicted on kickback charges.

In November 2002, shortly after the election, prosecutors began looking more directly at the Rowland administration. Ellef became the subject of a federal investigation into the state trash agency losing $220 million in a bad deal with energy giant Enron.

Even then, there was little public outcry against Rowland.

But by 2003, the ethics cloud over Rowland's head turned into a thunderstorm .

�On March 10, his former deputy chief of staff Lawrence Alibozek pleaded guilty to accepting cash and gold payments in return for steering state contracts toward certain companies. Alibozek agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors.

�In December, The Hartford Courant reported that federal investigators were looking into who paid for a hot tub, a cathedral ceiling, electrical work, landscaping, a new heating unit and new gutters at the Rowland's summer cottage in Litchfield.

Rowland initially lied about the matter, and said he paid for the $20,000 worth of work himself. But he later admitted that state employees and firms doing business with the state paid for all of the work. Alibozek, Ellef, and the Tomasso family were among those who paid for the improvements.

In January 2004, reports surfaced that Rowland made a large profit off the 1997 sale of his Washington, D.C., condominium. Two months later, prominent antiques dealer Wayne Pratt pleaded guilty in federal court to violating federal tax laws as part of a plea bargain with prosecutors looking into the Rowland matters.

Pratt told prosecutors he bought the condo for $68,500, when it was valued at about $30,000. Pratt reportedly acted as the middleman between Rowland and contractor Robert Matthews, who has received millions in state loans and contracts for renting office space to state agencies.

Before the sale, Matthews's niece rented the condo for $1,750 per month, when most condos that size were going for $400 to $600 per month.

This spring, there were more revelations:

�In 1998, Kurt C. Claywell, an electrical contractor who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of state contracts, pleaded guilty last year to tax fraud and mail fraud. He told prosecutors he gave Rowland up to $10,000 worth of Cuban cigars and French champagne.

�In 1997 and 2003, the W.R. Berkley Corp., which provides insurance for workers' compensation claims, paid for trips to Florida for John and Patricia Rowland. In 2003, Berkley paid Patricia Rowland $15,000 to give a speech at a company convention.

�The Hartford Courant reported this spring that after his 1998 re-election Rowland and his family stayed at a luxury hotel in New York, The Carlysle. Rowland's re-election committee arranged for the trip, but never paid the $1,787 bill to the travel agency.

Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, a member of the House Select Committee of Inquiry, said last week that the evidence showed that Rowland routinely use his office for profit. "The obvious conclusion is that these were corrupt relationships," Lawlor said.

Rowland and his lawyers say that's not the case. They said that the governor was simply being treated well by friends who expected - and received - nothing in return.

They say there was a reason that Rowland accepted the gifts - he was struggling financially. For most of his years as governor, John Rowland made only $78,000. He had alimony to pay from a first marriage. He had five children to raise.

Few people, if any, are defending Rowland's actions. But a number believe that it is unfair to lump Rowland with other corrupt politicians. They said that Rowland did not enrich himself to the extent of Bridgeport's Ganim - who accepted more than $500,000 in bribes and benefits.

They also said that, unlike Ganim, there is no evidence yet that Rowland traded gifts directly for government contracts. "This is nothing like Bridgeport," said Dunlap, the Quinnipiac law professor. "These are minor, almost petty cases of personal corruption."

Others are not as sure.

"People will forgive him over credit card abuse," said Gary Rose, a political science professor at Sacred Heart University. "They might have even forgiven him for cigars and fine wine" in the absence of other scandals.

But there was more. Much more.

"The Matthews affair with the condo was the most obvious and blatant ethical violation, followed closely by the cottage," Rose said. "It certainly seems coincidental those people were awarded state contracts."